“Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right?” ranted MSNBC host Tucker Carlson last December. “Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right? Canada spends all of its time thinking about the United States, obsessing over the United States. It’s unrequited love between Canada and the United States. We, meanwhile, don’t even know Canada’s name. We pay no attention at all… Canada is a sweet country. It’s like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he’s nice, but you don’t take him seriously. That’s Canada.”

Right-winger Ann Coulter was more threatening in her description: “They better hope the United States doesn’t roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” Carlson and Coulter’s comments suggest that Americans may not be particularly interested in reading about Canada, but foreign correspondents argue otherwise.

The issue of gay marriage, for example, drew worldwide attention to Canada and had an impact on the U.S., says Clifford Krauss, Canadian bureau chief for The New York Times. The ruling on gay marriage is arguably the most historic thing that has happened since he’s been here. Still, Krauss recognizes an inferiority complex. “Maybe it takes a psychiatrist to understand why it is that Canadians frequently find what happens outside the country more important than what’s going on within,” he says. Perhaps Canada has a psychiatrist, in the form of foreign correspondents. For these correspondents, covering this country is one big therapy session, with our country lying submissively on the proverbial leather couch airing its sins while they nod empathetically and write the opposite down in their notebooks.

One myth Krauss is trying to debunk, despite Carlson and Coulter’s menacing comments, is that Americans have a negative attitude towards Canada. He argues that a lot of Americans think Canada is better than the U.S. with regards to its health care system and its environmental policy. Krauss was under this impression as well, until a trip to Vancouver made him promptly remove his rose-coloured glasses. He sat down with environmentalists and was shocked to learn that Canada is not the environmentally friendly country it claims to be. The activists informed Krauss that the province is run by the lumber industry and yet a lot of Canadians don’t seem to care. More shocking was the lack of regulations for the protection of endangered species. “You hear a lot about Canadian values,” he says. “What Canadian values are, I’m not quite sure but it’s always Canadian values, which is basically, we’re good. We’re good people, we care about the important things. But it’s a lot of rhetoric. You can sign Kyoto, but if you take a look at the policy and the record, it’s not very good.”

Even more shocking for Krauss was former prime minister Paul Martin – knee-deep in the Liberal Party’s sponsorship scandal – claiming that other countries would judge their record against Canada’s. Martin’s comment seemed laughable in light of the country’s deficient environmental policy and poor treatment of its native peoples. In May 2005, Krauss wrote a controversial article entitled “Was Canada Just Too Good to Be True?” He called the Liberal government’s virtue into question in light of the sponsorship scandal, its environmental policy and its treatment of Aboriginal Peoples. Many Canadian readers of the Timesapplauded Krauss for revealing that the nation’s cloak of virtue was as transparent as the emperor’s clothes. But Krauss received little feedback on this piece from Americans, perhaps indicating that America isn’t as fascinated with Canada as he would have us believe. “The feedback was all from Canadians and it was virtually one hundred per cent positive,” says Krauss. “I got phone calls, emails, and I was put on television several times.” Poking holes in Canada’s national myths is a theme of Krauss’s work and he admits it’s a lot easier to do as an outsider.

The lack of self-criticism is endemic here, according to Krauss. “That doesn’t seem to be part of the Canadian nature,” he says, “unless it’s criticizing the United States – then you see a more robust commentary.” There is a lot of criticism of individual politicians but that’s the easy angle. He likens covering politics to covering sports: neither requires much legwork. That isn’t to say they’re not useful to his readers – stories about hockey are in fact an important part of Canadian culture, he says. It’s a violent sport embraced by a country that is non-violent – or at least claims to be.

Correspondents see a different country, sometimes recognizing strengths and achievements that most Canadians miss. “Canadians are perhaps not as aware of the weight that they have in the global decision-making community,” says Gilbert Le Gras, Canadian economics correspondent for Reuters. “That’s too bad because there is some good work that Canada is doing that ordinary people aren’t reading about.” Le Gras points to the lack of coverage in Canadian newspapers of secretary general Donald Johnston’s replacement at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Since Canada held this top job at the OECD for ten years, Johnston’s replacement was a big deal. “The story got published elsewhere,” Le Gras says, “but people weren’t paying attention here.” Like Krauss, he is amazed at how much Canada underestimates itself.

And there is sometimes suspicion about outsiders’ interest in Canada. When Beth Duff-Brown, Canadian bureau chief for the Associated Press, arrived at a Toronto health briefing about the mysterious illness killing elderly residents at a Scarborough retirement home in October 2005, she quickly became the subject of interest. The United Nations had just released statements regarding the possibility of an avian ‘flu (H5N1) pandemic. The climate at the briefing was replete with fear.

Duff-Brown began asking questions and when Canadian reporters learned that she was an American journalist from AP, they were convinced she was sent specifically to cover the illness. Duff- Brown, interviewed by Canadian news networks CTV and Global, was treated with suspicion and repeatedly asked why she was blowing the story out of proportion. “You’re always saying we don’t care about Canada,” she says, “why shouldn’t we be covering it?” The illness was later identified as legionnaires’ disease.

Canadians had good reason to be nervous. Two years earlier, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which also began in a Scarborough medical facility, created a sense of panic about travel to Canada and wreaked havoc on the country’s economy. The Canadian Tourism Commission equated the impact of SARS on the accommodation industry to that of 9/11, reporting up to $92.2 million in lost room revenue in April 2003, compared to earnings in the same month in 2002, $39 million of which was in the Greater Toronto Area. Duff-Brown dismisses the reporters’ caginess as hypocritical.

The way in which the country has been covered has evolved over the years. Typically, the Times used to award the post to someone near retirement, since Canada wasn’t seen as a demanding place. Andrew H. Malcolm, who was the Times‘s Toronto bureau chief from 1978 until 1982, changed the perception of the posting. He knew there was more to Canada than the boring government stories previous Ottawa correspondents had written. A day after his arrival in 1978, the Times went on strike. He spent the first ninety-three days reporting and ended up with a huge stockpile of stories on his desk. As soon as the strike was over, Malcolm began parcelling out his stories and something historic happened: Canada began appearing in virtually every section of the Times, from the Travel section to the Week in Review.

Malcolm made a real study of Canada, writing the 1985 book The Canadians, which he describes as a personal portrait of Canada and its relationship with the U.S. When Malcolm first approached Canadian publishers they said they weren’t interested in a book about Canada-that is, until a New York publisher gave its seal of approval. The Canadians spent half a year on the Maclean’s bestseller list. CTV bought the rights to the book and turned it into a mini-series. The Canadians remains in print in the U.S. and, two decades later, is still used in Canadian studies classes.

History can be learned, but geography presents a distinct challenge for correspondents. Jim Brooke, Canada correspondent for the Times from 1999 until 2001, described the difficulty of covering Canada as “the tyranny of distance.” However, he chose not to see it as a disadvantage, travelling to nine provinces – Brooke still hopes to visit P.E.I. – and three territories, a feat few Canadian journalists or citizens can match.

Every day, Krauss looks up at the map of Canada and asks himself, “Where am I going next?” It’s an attitude, he argues, not enough Canadian journalists have. “I write a lot of stories that aren’t done here,” he says. “I find some Canadian newspapers don’t travel the country.” Unlike Krauss, John Burns, former Canada correspondent for the Times from 1987 to 1988 and current Iraq bureau chief, takes the outsider view with a grain of salt. “Some stories,” he notes, “that probably sound so familiar to Canadian editors and don’t really excite them, very much do excite Americans,” who, he adds, are intrigued by the “romance” of Canadian history. As for Canadian journalists’ failure to travel the country, it might be a lack of time and money, rather than a genuine lack of interest. If you work for newspapers such as The Toronto Star or The Vancouver Sun, you’re more likely to be tied down by metropolitan events, unlike a Times correspondent who has the time and budget to roam.

Seeing the polar bears up north, for instance, is a rite of passage for foreign correspondents, much to the chagrin of their editors. AP’s previous Canada bureau chief was an outdoorsy type with a penchant for the North. Duff-Brown received a warning from her editors that AP wasn’t too interested in stories about “Eskimos and polar bears.” That didn’t stop her predecessor from proudly passing down his pair of knee-high, extreme-weather survival boots, which she hopes to put to use. While she understands her editors’ concern of typecasting Canada as a snow globe, she feels the North is an important part of the country that doesn’t receive enough coverage. “That’s a huge part of Canada’s heritage and, frankly, its economy,” she says. “If global warming continues at its pace, the Arctic is going to shift and that’s going to change geo politics as we know it.”

Politics presents another challenge and some correspondents admit they rely on CBC’s live political coverage. “I put a satellite on the roof of my house in Colorado and aimed it at Canada,” explains Jim Brooke, who immersed himself in CBC. Duff-Brown also watches a lot of CBC coverage when writing stories about Ottawa.

In over fifteen years with AP, Duff-Brown has acquired extensive experience covering politics. She’s worked in countries with oppressive governments such as the Ivory Coast, where she couldn’t talk to a politician without a gun being pointed at her head. She’s also worked in surprisingly open societies like India, where she could arrive unannounced at a politician’s house, knock on the door and be invited in for tea. Canada, she finds, has its share of bureaucratic hoops. Covering Canadian politics can be time-consuming, since there is a formal procedure journalists must follow simply to elicit a comment from a politician.

Krauss agrees that reporting on Ottawa is not easy. “Canada has that British tradition,” he says. “The bureaucracy holds its information very closely. Where you have the Parliament and the government in the hands of the same people, I think that tightens information.” As Washington correspondent, Krauss found it easier. Much of the conflict between the executive and legislative branches of the American government is fought out in the press, so there is more information available.

Being a foreign correspondent stationed in Canada is all about coaxing the reader in the home country to care about Canadian stories and issues. Krauss’s approach is to write stories that are recognizable to his American readers in order to close any perceived chasm between Canada and the U.S. He filed a story on peewee hockey, a subject to which his readers can relate. “I’d like to think that Americans would be more interested in reading about Canada when they get to know Canada a little better.” That’s essentially what foreign correspondents do: help their readers get to know Canada a little better, or at least the Canada they see in their short time here.

I’m giggling to the Howard Stern Show on 92.9 JACK FM during my Tuesday morning drive to the School of Journalism at Ryerson University in downtown Toronto. It’s one of Stern’s last programs on the Buffalo station, just before he makes his much-publicized jump to Sirius Satellite Radio. That’s when Canadians living near the U.S. border will no longer be able pick up his show for free. Today’s topic is: Guess the weight of High Pitch Eric’s excrement.

High Pitch Eric is a large, balding man – think Mike Tyson without the muscle tone – whose voice hits frequencies only a dog can discern. While High Pitch’s vocal cords are normally the focus, today it’s his bowel movement. When I first tune in, I think they’re guessing the weight of an elephant’s dung droppings. But no, it’s a real person’s. A large person’s.

Stern’s crew has set up its equipment – and a makeshift toilet in the middle of High Pitch’s apartment – to document the contest on-air. Back in the studio, Stern and co-host Robin Quivers wait eagerly for High Pitch’s business to cease and the weigh-in to begin. They’ve placed their wagers. Stern confidently holds the under bet – $500 on 3.5 pounds or less – because he interviewed a zoo employee and was told that the amount of feces large animals produce is surprisingly low.

At one point, amidst Stern and the gang haggling over their bets and the vivid descriptions of High Pitch’s activity, they receive a warning. Tom Chiusano, general manager for WXRK, Infinity Broadcasting’s rock station in New York, tells them they’re violating Federal Communications Commission (FCC) obscenity guidelines. Again. As usual, they’re warned if they don’t tone it down they’ll be censored.

That’s when Stern’s lament begins. He’s tired of the censorship. He thinks it hurts his credibility. Beginning January 1, 2006, he’ll unlock the FCC’s shackles and enter the promised land of satellite radio. Of course, it helps that Sirius is paying him $500 million over five years to break those chains.

Satellite radio is being touted as the new, free-form environment south of the border, but increasingly it looks as if this will not be the case in Canada. “It won’t be the wild, wild west that it purports to be in the States,” says Jeff Marek, AM 640’s director of sports programming. “Shows like Stern’s won’t be made available in Canada because it doesn’t meet CRTC regulations.”

CRTC stands for Canadian Radio Telecommunications Commission, a regulatory body that, since 1968, has been responsible for determining what Canadians listen to and watch. It decided in November 2001 that Stern was too offensive for Canadian sensibilities. Despite good ratings, the show was pulled from the Corus Radio?owned CILQ FM – better known as Q107 Toronto’s Classic Rock – because of complaints from the public that it was offensive.

But in this new era of 500 TV channels, the Internet and satellite radio, some people wonder if the CRTC hasn’t become a meddlesome regulatory body that has outlived its usefulness. Two large, intensely competitive American corporations, Sirius and XM Satellite Radio – as well as a Canadian consortium of CHUM Ltd. and Astral Media – have been trying to get past CRTC objections and pry open the Canadian market, but it’s been a slow process.

All three companies were approved for a license June 16, 2005, and then the decision was appealed. There were misgivings about the stations not being compelled to provide enough Canadian content, particularly French-language programming. To avoid further delays, the trio of entrants voluntarily modified their CRTC license applications to include eight Canadian channels – four English and four French – with three of the four French-language channels offering music.

The CRTC allowed the public to voice its comments regarding the amended licenses until November 4, 2005. There is speculation that satellite radio stations will go to air in December 2005, but CRTC officer Maria DaSilva says, “That’s what the news reporters are saying, but don’t forget we have this process. It might be that by December we have our decision, but it might be that we don’t.” XM technical producer Aron Papernick, for one, believes they will, but says, “Companies may miss their original December 1 deadline because they were sidetracked in September and October by backbench, no-name Liberal policy wonks.”

The issue of Canadian content has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of the satellite debate in this country. As it stands XM, Sirius and CHUM-Astral must provide 20 per cent Canadian content, while traditional, or terrestrial, radio must provide 35 per cent – a 43 per cent drop in CanCon commitments.

This differential worries Jim Thompson, media representative for the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting lobby group. He’s concerned satellite radio might dilute the mount of Canadian content on both satellite and terrestrial radio. “Commercial radio stations have already called out for relief from the obligation they currently have to play Canadian artists,” he says, “on the grounds that satellite radio has a much lighter obligation when it comes to playing Canadian music. That will be a very powerful argument with commercial radio operations when they come before the CRTC to have their licenses renewed.”

There won’t be any arguments about lowering Canadian content, DaSilva vows, when it comes time for stations to renew their licenses with the CRTC. “Don’t make the comparison to the other regulations,” she says. “It’s two types of service. It’s the same thing for television – different regulations for different services. That’s why they’re not called commercial radio stations. They’re subscription radio stations.”

Concern for the amount of American influence satellite radio will have on Canadian audiences is one thing. Another is convincing consumers to spend money on something they currently get for free. Satellite receivers range in price from $130 to $300, and the monthly subscription rate is $12.99. For that kind of investment, Marek says, radio personnel have to be reminded of the adage: Content is king.

Marek likens satellite radio’s chances of success to the introduction of bottled water. Fifteen years ago, he argues, people were happy to use the water fountain. Now they’ll gladly pay two dollars a bottle, because it is perceived as a premium product. The onus, in other words, is on satellite radio executives to convince listeners they aren’t getting premium content on terrestrial radio.

And they may have a case. Satellite radio now boasts of carrying premium content like Martha Stewart, New York Times Radio, National Public Radio and Stern. “It’s up to the Siriuses and the XMs to present different voices, sounds, opinions, attitudes and ideas,” Marek says, “or they’ll just try to out-Nickleback each other.”

Even the vigilant Thompson is not convinced it will be successful. So far, XM and Sirius haven’t been able to attract enough subscribers in the U.S., and he suspects they may have to merge to turn a profit. “XM radio has about 5 million subscribers and Sirius has somewhere in the 3 million range,” he says. “My understanding is that either needs about 7.5 million subscribers to make money.”

While the CRTC seems intent on impeding the freewheeling Sterns of the world, what might happen on satellite radio in Canada – at least initially – is a lot of simulcasting. Sirius radio is already dabbling in it, striking a deal with the television show The Score to simulcast its sports updates. “Let’s not forget,” says Marek, “satellite radio has to get content from somewhere.”

This kind of synergy is at best a timid use of satellite radio, but ultimately it could offer terrestrial radio a chance to rethink itself – something it hasn’t done in decades. At first, radio listeners didn’t have much choice and listened to whatever was available on the AM dial. When FM came along in the 1960s, it took a while for senior radio personnel to figure out how to program it. Now we’re at the beginning of this process again. “It’s another evolution in the technology,” says Marek, “which is going to engender a revolution in programming.”

The revolution will remain unprovoked for a while, according to Papernick, who says this transitional period has created a “curious vibe” in the industry. “They still see it as radio,” he says. “They don’t see it as new format.”